(Author Name)
(Course Name/Number)
Of all of the things that are important for the development of young children, there is one that goes without question. Play has dominated the social sciences are a true cornerstone in the healthy development of children, from infants through the adolescent years. Multiple types of play have been recognized in the years leading up to what many consider to be the height of psychological science, research, and implementation. It is through Symbolic play and Creative play that children are able to explore their limits, test possible solutions to problems, and learn how to navigate as adults through the ecological systems identified by Urie Bronfenbrenner as the Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macro system, and Chronosystem. Through the analysis of different types of play and child rearing styles, there are some distinct patterns of development in terms of cognitive, emotional, and moral characteristics. And, as we come into an age where there is heightened awareness and higher prevalence of disorders such as autism and behavioral disorders, we see that play is beneficial at all levels of functioning, intellect, and emotional intelligence.
Differences in child rearing practices were once accepted as culturally relative, something not to be dabbled in from the outsider perspective. It wasn’t until the public turned an eye to the catastrophic inhumanities that boiled over from the inhumane treatment of animals to the welfare of young children that people started taking an interest in creating public policy surrounding these issues. After initial public policies were created in Europe to protect the welfare of young children, the attention to care of children shifted from a family and cultural responsibility to a social responsibility. Although this paradigm shift has taken many generations to go into effect, there is an awareness surrounding the public’s duty to institute fair treatment towards innocent children and intervention in the case of maltreatment. This shift is largely due to research investigating the impact of maltreatment of children by parents and guardians.
In a peer reviewed study published by Jay Belsky of Pennsylvania State University, evidence suggests that child maltreatment is “a social-psychological phenomenon that is multiply determined by forces at work in the individual (ontogenic development) and the family (the microsystem), as well as in the community (the exosystem) and the culture (the macro system) in which both the individual and the family are embedded” . Although in the 1980’s this research was in it’s infancy, we can see that influences from different ecological systems are responsible for the healthy development of children into healthy adults and it is not solely the result of maltreatment as children that adults will prefer one child rearing style over another.
However, studies do suggest that environment, as well as genetics, play an integral role in the development of children. In terms of the immediate microsystem, psychopathological traits can be inherited in a number of ways and research finds that “children can affect their parent’s behavior just as much as parents affect their children” . These finding are particularly important because they suggest that there is a strong link that connects the development of children as well as the familial structure and cultural norms, but also within society as a whole. As society develops to take on the responsibility of protecting the welfare and interests of children, it becomes socially acceptable to change the way parents foster development within their own homes.
For the purpose of this research, I have identified three main child rearing styles, not including maltreatment or uninvolved child-rearing, “a child-rearing style that combines low acceptance and involvement with little control and general indifference to issues of autonomy” . First, “the authoritarian child-rearing style is low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting” while “the permissive child-rearing style is warm and accepting but uninvolved” . On the other end of the spectrum, the authoritative child rearing style “is high in acceptance and involvement, emphasizes adaptive control techniques, and includes gradual, appropriate autonomy granting”. Although there are pros and cons to each of the different parenting styles, it should be noted that recognizably “children of permissive parents tend to be impulsive, disobedient, and rebellious. Compared with children whose parents exert more control, they are overly demanding and dependent on adults, and they show less persistent on tasks, poorer school achievement, and more antisocial behavior”. This finding pinpoints the permissive parenting style as the most detrimental within the microsystem, but it does not explain the effects that other ecological systems, outline by Urie Bronfenbrenner, have on the development of these children and it is through different types of play that psychological professionals are able to better understand social interactions and what this means for each type of child reared through authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles and how the extent of the macro system influences their abilities to navigate through life successfully.
At this point in the development of psychology as a respected social science, we can assume that there are many different influences that impact the way young children develop into productive or non-productive adults and although there is always an expected baseline, no two people are fundamentally identical in terms of emotional intelligence, intellect, physical abilities, or mental health, or mental or physiological functioning. As we can see from the impact that permissive parenting styles have on the development of children, we can assume that either authoritarian or authoritative child-rearing styles are preferable, however we cannot conclude with certainty that this is the case, just as we cannot conclude that there is a significant difference between one case of autism or another.
It is important to realize that autism effects everyone different, but the research is quite conclusive that socio-dramatic play directly benefits children with autism. In one study conducted by Griffith University in Australia, “Results indicated that CCPT was an effective intervention for this small sample of young children with autism” and “data from both formal and informal measures showed positive improvements for all children in several areas of social and emotional functioning” . It is not conclusive to say that this type of play is successful with every child suffering from autism nor is a discredit to the benefits that socio-dramatic play may have on other target groups, such as children suffering from Asperger’s, children with behavioral problems, or products of adverse child rearing practices.
Moving forward from maltreatment, the effects of socio-dramatic play, and the residual effects of conflicting child-rearing styles, we are left with a society comprised of adults that have developed differently. These adults have all constructed their social, moral, and emotional boundaries based on the limits provided to them genetically or through childhood experiences. In this context, we see how necessary the role of child play from toddler through preschool years is mandatory if we expect to have a functioning social system. Children that learn to interact and form reactions to specific action early in childhood will later move on to have a finite understanding of how society works at all levels of the ecological system, including the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macro system, and chronosystem; providing a foundation for generations to come.
Symbolic play, specifically, has shown to have a significant impact on healthy adjustments of young children in their home and school environment. A case study conducted by Rhodes University found that a “6-year-old boy's use of repetitive symbolic play assisted him toward healthier adjustment in his home and school environments” and “became a therapeutic process in and of itself that contributed toward self-directed change within his sense of self” . These findings suggest much more than the importance of symbolic play in the immediate microsystem, but it also offers insight into a transcending of all ecological systems during the development process, throughout adulthood, and into the implementation of future parenting. Symbolic play “is the most fundamental of childhood experiences (O'Conner, 1991), allowing children to explore, experiment, and discover themselves within a nonthreatening and controllable environment of fantasy and make-believe (Landreth, 2001)” and “the benefits of play are far-reaching and impact neurological development (O'Conner, 1991), social interaction, cognitive, language, as well as emotional development (Landreth, 2001).” . This research is evidence based, backed, and globally accepted throughout the field of psychology.
Furthermore, creative play and socio-dramatic play types include associative play, “a form of social interaction in which children engage in separate activities but interact by exchanging toys and commenting on one another's behavior”, cooperative play, “a form of social interaction in which children orient toward a common goal, such as acting out a make-believe theme”, and parallel play, “a form of limited social participation in which a child plays near other children with similar materials but does not interact with them” . Each “holds significant therapeutic value in providing a safe, protective, and containing space where children can recreate themselves and self-cure” and children particularly need this for healthy development because research proves the “incongruence manifests in psychological maladjustment, psychopathology, and symptomatic behavior (O'Conner, 1991;Landreth, 2002)” ; a chance that society isn’t willing to take, let blossom, and perpetuate for generations to come.
After examining all of the research, it seems undoubtedly that play is critical link in the development of healthy adults. We can see from our own experiences with our children and the children of our peers that social interaction between toddlers to preschool aged children is crucial in building moral boundaries, behavioral reasoning, and social acceptability among the group as a whole. A comparison of the effect play has on children can be held closely to the effect that work has on older children. Generations of farmers have claimed the importance of teaching young men how to work productively, and although society has generally seen this as a way to secure more labor around the house, it has come to the attention of psychologists that work therapy may have benefits on self-esteem, social connectedness, and emotional development. The theory itself is quite simple because the framework provides an unlimited amount of trial and error time for young children to experiment with what works effectively in their immediate surroundings. After they have subconsciously and consciously drawn their own conclusions about how to interact with other members of society and under which circumstances (i.e. Ecological systems), they are able to better navigate the dynamic fluctuations of life that await in adulthood. Therefore, we can understand the importance that play has on building problem solving skills, understanding purpose, and setting goals.
Mildred Parten’s theory on play at different levels, among different age groups, and with different types of toys has given psychologists the foundation for observing the implications of play on the development of children. It is ironic to note that Mildred Parten herself concluded that “I.Q. has little influence on the preschool child's friendships” rather “age and home environment influence friendships” . In the same context, it is important to note that among preschool children, “siblings show a marked preference for each other's society” and “playing house is the most social type of play engaged in by nursery school children” . The significance of these findings is that there is an obvious correlation between the ways children interact with each other based on the interactions of their home environment. This similarity in interactions could be largely due to the fact that children do not often experience much outside of the home environment and when they are in a neutral play environment, they make-believe play based on the environmental stimuli that have influenced their thinking. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the interaction within the home carries into the social interactions and vice versa. As I mentioned earlier “children can affect their parent’s behavior just as much as parents affect their children” . This is equally important because it means that play is similar to a stage at all levels of human life, allowing children to develop ideas about what is socially acceptable, but it also allows adults to change their perspectives, open their minds, and further advance human intellect.
If the development that takes place in childhood carries over into adulthood, and the learned interaction between children can be conveyed to adults in their real-world situations, a strengthening of social boundaries will occur. In a society where everyone understands that the rules are fundamentally the same across the board, and they can expect the same response predictably to specific actions, there is the chance for a society that is not torn by unpredictability, awkward interactions, and the continuation of a cycle that promotes conflict. This model of symbolic interactionism is much more than a society filled with people who don’t understand the consequences of their actions, rather it is a society that will develop to their full potential through the strengthening of values defined by those boundaries set forth in childhood. A small piece of the puzzle that we, as humans, may view as simple play between two children could mean the difference between war and peace in the larger picture. After all, not do the social sciences recognize the value of healthy relationships, but it is a study that is centered on promoting the advancement of humanity at all levels.
Bibliography
Belsky, J. P. (1980, April). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35(4), 320-335.
Berk, L. E. (2014). Development through the Lifespan. Pearson.
Campbell, M. M. (2010, October). Repetitive symbolic play as a therapeutic process in child-centered play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 19(4).
Hammond, R., Cheney, P., & Pearsey, R. (2015). Sociology of the Family. Payson: Rocky Ridge Press.
McAdams, T. A. (2014, July). Accounting for genetic and environmental confounds in associations between parent and child characteristics: A systematic review of children-of-twins studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1138-1173.
Parten, M. B. (1933, July). Social play among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 28(2), 136-147.
Salter, K. G. (2016, April). The effects of child-centered play therapy (CCPT) on the social and emotional growth of young Australian children with autism. International Journal of Play Therapy, 25(2), 78-90.
